That is the conundrum faced by the 500-some members of the Baseball Writers Association of America — including This Space — whose vote determines today’s announcement of the Hall of Fame Class of 2015.

If history is a guide, the announcement will be made a little after 11 a.m. The complaining will begin almost immediately. Your favorite didn’t get in. Or someone wasn’t unanimous, or didn’t get in on his first try. And, of course, there is the continuing shadow of PED usage, involving not just the obvious suspects but others whose vote totals have been affected by circumstantial evidence and hearsay.

(More on that farther down.)

And, of course, any complaining always comes back to the argument that the writers — who earn their Hall of Fame vote after 10 seasons of covering the sport and not only have seen these players play but actually, you know, talk to players and managers as part of their jobs — aren’t as knowledgeable as broadcasters, or sabermetricians, or bloggers.

Stop it.

Those with your noses pressed against the glass, kindly consider which deserving players you would leave off, with only 10 spots available and 20 of the 34 players on the ballot for whom you can make a serious case. Then let’s talk.

The ballot, as always, consists of no-brainers, guys for whom you can make a strong argument and guys with little chance. Problem is, that middle class just keeps growing.

The guys who almost certainly will get in, if not this year but soon: Craig Biggio, Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, John Smoltz.

And, of course, there is the limbo category for players who would be no-brainers had they not already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion: Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.

How do I determine my vote? Not so much with numbers, which is why some of the impassioned pleas for and against certain players from sabermetric types amuse me. I’m not anti-WAR, per se, but I’m skeptical of any stat that requires more than a paragraph to explain.

I use the eyeball test. And I ask these questions:

— Was the player in question among the best at his position in his prime?

Yep, Bonds and Clemens. I don’t believe that we as voters should set ourselves up to be the morality police. Their accomplishments before their alleged — note that word — PED use were Hall of Fame worthy. And there are no assurances that absolutely everyone they faced was squeaky clean. If you wish, feel free to put on their plaques: “Suspected of steroid use.”

Biggio’s 3,060 hits and 1,800 runs scored should get him in. Bagwell had five seasons with an OPS over 1.000 and was a perennial MVP candidate. Raines and current Hall of Famer Rickey Henderson were the best leadoff men of their generation. Trammell’s value went way beyond numbers on those Detroit clubs of the ‘80s. Smith set the all-time saves record (since broken) at 478, and during his season and a half in the Angels bullpen he passed the torch to Percival, who saved 358 games and helped bring Anaheim a World Series championship.

And while retired Boston Globe columnist Bob Ryan recently suggested that anyone who didn’t check off Pedro Martinez should be stripped of voting privileges, Johnson (with 84 more wins and 1,721 more strikeouts) probably should be closer to a unanimous pick.

Nobody will be, of course, thanks to the feistiness (irascibility?) of our electorate.

You may have noticed the absence of Smoltz, who was accomplished as a starter and a reliever and could get in anyway this year. He and Piazza were my last cuts.

But with the new rule that limits a player to 10 years on the ballot, presuming he gets at least 5 percent of the vote, I’ll leave off a consensus choice if I have to in favor of a middle-class guy I feel strongly about.

So sorry, Smoltzie. And expansion of the ballot — to 12, at least, and maybe more — can’t come soon enough.